-
N – Enough conflicts of interest?29 April 2008In March the BMJ asked whether the hunt for authors’ conflicts of interests had gone too far. Thomas Stossel argued that restrictions on academics’ interaction with commercial companies damages research because they exclude qualified experts from writing in some journals. They also limit financial rewards that professionals can receive from private companies or even ban […]
-
B – Developments of Informetrics (2000-2006)24 April 2008Bar-Ilan J. Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review. Journal of Informetrics 2008;2(1):1-52 This is a very interesting review covering several issues concerning Informetrics, Bibliometrics, Scientometrics and Webometrics, at the beginning of the 21st century. The reader can find, here described, the most important novelties in these disciplines such as the developments of […]
-
B – Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting18 April 2008Ross J S, Hill K P, Egilman D S, Krumholz H M. Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib: A Case Study of Industry Documents From Rofecoxib Litigation. JAMA 2008;299(15):1800-1812 The article starts from the recent litigation related to rofecoxib, to examine guest authorship and ghostwriting, both practices that have been suspected in […]
-
B – Impugning the Integrity of Medical Science17 April 2008DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA 2008;299(15):1833-1835. This Editorial illustrates studies documenting the manipulation of study results, authors, editors, and reviewers by pharmaceutical and medical device industries. It states also that if this manipulation has occurred it is because physicians have allowed it to […]
-
B – Editors and Copy Editors in Fiction: Taking a Carpet-Sweeper to the Jungle17 April 2008Bell H K. Editors and Copy Editors in Fiction: Taking a Carpet-Sweeper to the Jungle. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2008;39(2):156-167doi: 10.3138/jsp.39.2.156 In this article, the author examines the various types of editors and copy editors presented in fiction: the conscientious, the compulsive, the stereotypical, the Cinderellas, the ruthless, the arrogant, and the power-abusers. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_scholarly_publishing/toc/scp39.2.html
-
B – Different Kind of Profession17 April 2008Luey B. Different Kind of Profession: The Council of Editors of Learned Journals (CELJ) Keynote Address MLA Convention 2006. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2008;39(2):94-108doi: 10.3138/jsp.39.2.93 This article, which started as the keynote address at the 2006 meeting of the Council of Editors of Learned Journals, discusses the ways professions are or are not appropriate to […]
-
B – Research Library Publishing Services: New Options for University Publishing16 April 2008Hahn C. Research Library Publishing Services: New Options for University Publishing. ARL, March 2008 This study is based on a survey carried out in 2007 by the Association of Research Libraries to gather data on the publishing services they were providing. The results showed that research libraries are rapidly developing publishing services(44% reported they were […]
-
B – No to Negative Data16 April 2008Wiley S. No to Negative Data. Why I believe findings that disprove a hypothesis are largely not worth publishing. The Scientist 2008;22(4):39 The article discusses the recent disinclination of scientific journals towards publishing negative data. The problem with negative results is that they are seen as not actually advancing science. Being science based on a […]
-
Fighting plagaiarism and IPR violation11 April 2008Kulathuramaiyer N, Maurer H. Fighting plagaiarism and IPR violation: why is it so important? Learned Publishing 2007;20:252-258. (doi: 10.1087/095315107X239618) The revolutionary development of the web presents numerous opportunities for plagiarism and infringements of intellectual property rights (IPR) to become even more widespread. This situation creats the risk of introducing a “culture of mediocrity”. Tools to […]
-
B – Peer review gets the thumbs up7 April 2008Banks, Michael. 2008 Peer review gets the thumbs up. Physics World 21(3)8. Review of a new survey of 3000 academics around the world in the sciences and arts commissioned by the Public Research Consortium. 93% of the respondents agreed peer review is necessary. Other questions involved ‘single-blind’ and ‘double-blind’ reviewing and whether reviewers should be […]
-
B – Save your notes, drafts and printouts: today’s work is tomorrow’s history7 April 2008Brenner S, Roberts RJ. Save your notes, drafts and printouts: today’s work is tomorrow’s history [Letter]. Nature 2007;446:725. The increasing of our knowledge in science is making it imperative that we document the history of all discoveries in this field. Historians need all forms of data so as to document the development of today’s innovations […]
-
B – The Nautilus: where – and how – OA will actually work1 April 2008Esposito JJ. The Nautilus: where – and how – OA will actually work. The Scientist 2007; 21(11):52. This article discusses the new phase of the debate over open access to the scientific literature, listing all pros and cons of OA within the landscape of scientific publishers. It presents scholarly communications as a Nautilus’ spiral, with […]
